I think that Linux is ideal for the average person. More people get into
trouble with Windows than people care to admit. The thing is that there are more
people nearby to help because more people use it. However, those problems may
not have arisen if the OS itself was not problematic for non-technical people.
Most Windows users can't defragment their hard drives, do basic maintenance, and
even re-install the OS when it slows to a crawl, which it is prone to do.

The problems that most people face when coming to Linux have little to do with
Linux itself. Rather they have to do with outside influences.

For example, hardware problems are not due to the fact that Linux cannot produce
drivers or detect the hardware. This problem is due to the relationship between
M$ and OEMs which has worked for their mutual benefit and enrichment at the
expense of the consumer. Hardware is often specifically made and tuned for
Windows. OEMs are reluctant to support open source for fear of killing the
golden goose, M$.

An example of this is Dell which early on was a big supporter of Linux and now
all they do is do everything that they can to fall all over M$. The reason? M$
has bought them out with heavy investments. The result? Less support from a
major OEM for Linux. The message? Don't consider going against M$. Another
example? ASUS which brought out the eeePC with Linux pre-installed. Now it is
hard to find Linux on their PCs. Why? M$ cut a sweet deal with them.

The question is, if Linux is so hard to use, then why is M$ going to all of this
trouble? They know that Linux is only hard to use if you need to install it on
equipment that is not made for it or if it can't be pre-installed. Force anyone
to build anything themselves and you can keep it to a fringe market. They want
to set the standards and determine what consumers can and can't do and they will
do whatever is necessary to do that.

The deck is stacked against Linux and it has nothing to do with Linux's
deficiencies. If Linux came pre-installed as Windows does then people would find
it easy to use. They would not need anti-virus software. They would not need to
worry about trojans or malware. They would not need to defragment their hard
drives. They could easily use Synaptic to download programmes and install them.
They could easily maintain their computers. Linux is setup for success from the
beginning.

Yes, Linux has the commandline, but it isn't necessary to use it. Ever. It is
just a tool. It is powerful for those who know how to use it, but it isn't
necessary. Below every OS there is code and scripts that someone has to write
and execute. Using the commandline puts you closer to the action and can speed
things up. If you don't feel comfortable with it then you should not use it.

Windows programmes will not run natively on Linux, but they don't run on a Mac
either. They were made for Windows. But there is absolutely no reason why they
could not be written to work on Linux and they would work better for the most
part. It is the same for games. There aren't many good games now, but Linux can
do games as well as Windows can.

As I said at the outset, there is nothing wrong with Linux. And there is nothing
special about Windows. There is nothing that you can do in Windows that would
not be possible to do in Linux. It is a great OS.

Most of the problems that newbies have in Linux have to do with their thinking.
They think that it is hard because it is different. Windows is not better and
the Windows way of doing things is not better. It is just a different approach.
To think that the Windows way is better is an impediment.

If an American was to move to France and always be thinking of home, then he or
she will be homesick and will not find happiness in France. That does not make
France bad. It is France, not America. Things are different because they are
meant to be.

The way to be happy in France is to enjoy the French and their way of doing
things. Get to enjoy the food and the wine. Get a taste for their joie de vivre.
Then you won't miss home so much and who knows? You may even learn something.

My intent is not to bash M$. They are a business and their goal is obvious. But
people need to stop making false assumptions about Linux and be realistic about
what is happening.

People try to make it a big contest and are looking for reasons to pronounce
Linux's hopes of being a desktop success a failure. They point to Windows 7 and
say that it will kill Linux on the desktop. Meanwhile users will continue to do
what they have always done which is simply to enjoy an alternative OS.
Obviously, the more people using it will mean better hardware support, but that
will happen anyway. It is just a matter of when.

Personally, I don't care if Linux is successful on the desktop. That isn't its
purpose. It isn't trying to compete and replace anything. It is just trying to
be itself and give users an alternative. That's all it ever was and nobody has
stepped forward to make it anything but that. They want users to have choice.
Having a level playing field would be nice, but that isn't going to happen.
There are always going to inequities. Just be sure that we recognize that it
isn't due to Linux's inherent deficiencies.

BTW, I thought some of you might like to see how we stack up against Windows 7:
www.tuxradar.com/.../benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

Not that it matters. Windows is what it is and Linux is what it is. Choice is
good.